@cite{grove-white-2025} #
Factivity, presupposition projection, and the role of discrete knowledge in gradient inference judgments. Natural Language Semantics 34:1–45.
Core Contribution #
Grove & White compare two hypotheses about the gradience observed in inference judgments for clause-embedding predicates:
Fundamental Discreteness Hypothesis (FDH) (definition (7a), p. 10): factivity is a discrete property of an expression on a particular occasion of use. A given use either triggers a projective inference, or it does not. Observed gradience arises from resolved indeterminacy — variation across occasions in which reading is selected.
Fundamental Gradience Hypothesis (FGH) (definition (7b), p. 10): there is no property distinguishing factive from non-factive occurrences. Gradient distinctions reflect gradient inference contributions.
Both hypotheses are recorded as FactivityHypothesis.FDH and
FactivityHypothesis.FGH in Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience,
where they are exposed as the two GradienceSource values. The paper's
distinctive content is encoded here: the τ-parameterised model and the
2 × 2 model space crossing factivity discreteness with world-knowledge
discreteness.
The Discrete-Factivity Model #
The discrete-factivity model is a ParamPred over FactivityReading:
clauseEmbeddingSem .factive=factivePos(BEL ∧ C)clauseEmbeddingSem .nonfactive=nonFactivePos(BEL)- prior over readings:
⟨τ, 1 − τ⟩forτ : Rat01
The graded truth value of a predicate at a world w then unfolds to
τ · 1[BEL∧C] + (1−τ) · 1[BEL] (discreteFactivity_gradedTruth).
This is the closed-form reduction of the τ-vertex of the paper's DAG
(definition (13), p. 20).
The Four Models #
Crossing factivity (discrete/gradient) × world knowledge (discrete/gradient)
yields four model variants. The paper reports that the discrete-factivity
× gradient-world variant achieves the best ELPD across all four datasets
(Sect. 4.3–4.4). The 2 × 2 is captured by ModelVariant, with the
discrete-factivity-vs-wholly-gradient pair sharing world-knowledge treatment
(best_worst_share_world_knowledge) so that switching factivity hypothesis
is the active variable.
Connection to PDS #
The paper's formal framework is Probabilistic Dynamic Semantics (PDS),
developed in @cite{grove-white-2025b}. The model's graded truth is the
PMF.probOfSet (= toOuterMeasure) of the satisfied-readings event
under the Bernoulli prior: graded inference judgments emerge from
marginalising over a discrete reading parameter, exactly the PDS
pattern in which a bind over a discrete probability node feeds a
Boolean predicate.
Connection to @cite{scontras-tonhauser-2025} #
@cite{scontras-tonhauser-2025}'s RSA model uses the same factivePos /
nonFactivePos foundation from Theories.Semantics.Attitudes.Factivity
for know / think. The bridges
clauseEmbedding_factive_eq_st_know and
clauseEmbedding_nonfactive_eq_st_think make this explicit. The S&T binary
treatment is the τ → {0, 1} limiting case of the discrete-factivity model
(st_is_limiting_case).
Connection to D&T 2021/2022 #
The empirical anchoring is provided by DegenTonhauser2022's aggregate
projection ratings: under the discrete-factivity model with τ_know > τ_think,
the model predicts the empirically observed know > think projection
ordering (empirical_ordering_consistent_with_tau). The prior-belief
modulation finding from @cite{degen-tonhauser-2021} (replicated in 2b) is
the specific empirical regularity the world-knowledge component is fit to.
§1. Clause-embedding semantics #
The two readings of a clause-embedding predicate under the FDH.
The factive reading triggers a projective inference (BEL ∧ C);
the nonfactive reading does not (BEL).
- factive : FactivityReading
- nonfactive : FactivityReading
Instances For
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.instDecidableEqFactivityReading x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Sum over FactivityReading.univ reduces to a two-term sum. Used by
factivityPrior.mass_sum_one and discreteFactivity_gradedTruth so the
Fintype enumeration doesn't reappear inline at every call site.
The Boolean denotation of a clause-embedding predicate, parameterized by
the resolved reading. The two readings dispatch directly to
Theories.Semantics.Attitudes.Factivity — factivePos and
nonFactivePos — so this study shares its foundations with
@cite{scontras-tonhauser-2025}'s know / think denotations.
Equations
Instances For
§2. The τ-parameterised prior #
τ.val : ℚ lifted to ℝ≥0 via the canonical ℝ-coercion. Lives
outside the Rat01 namespace because Rat01 is an abbrev for
a Subtype, so dot notation on τ : Rat01 resolves through the
underlying Subtype rather than the Rat01 namespace.
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.Rat01.toNNReal τ = (↑↑τ).toNNReal
Instances For
The Bernoulli prior over FactivityReading: factive with probability
τ.val, nonfactive with probability 1 − τ.val. The τ parameter is
bundled as Rat01 (↥(Set.Icc (0:ℚ) 1)), so the [0,1] constraint is
intrinsic to the type rather than threaded as side hypotheses. This is
the τ-vertex of the discrete-factivity DAG (definition (13), p. 20).
Built from mathlib's PMF.bernoulli (a PMF Bool) by relabeling
true ↦ .factive, false ↦ .nonfactive.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
§3. The discrete-factivity ParamPred #
The discrete-factivity model packaged as a ParamPred: Boolean
semantics dispatched on FactivityReading, with a Bernoulli prior over
that reading. The graded truth value gradedTruth is then the
ℝ≥0∞-valued probability mass on the satisfied-readings set —
PMF.probOfSet of the "predicate satisfied at this world" event.
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.discreteFactivityPred τ = { semantics := GroveWhite2025.clauseEmbeddingSem, prior := GroveWhite2025.factivityPrior τ }
Instances For
Closed-form reduction: graded truth = τ · 1[factivePos] + (1−τ) · 1[nonFactivePos].
This is the substantive content of the τ-parameterised model — graded
inference values arise from a τ-weighted mixture of two crisp Boolean
readings.
With τ = 1 (certainly factive), graded truth reduces to factivePos.
With τ = 0 (certainly nonfactive), graded truth reduces to nonFactivePos.
Monotonicity in τ: at a world that satisfies the factive reading but
not the nonfactive reading, increasing τ strictly increases graded
truth. The hypothesis pattern factivePos w ∧ ¬ nonFactivePos w is
impossible in standard Boolean semantics (factive_entails_nonfactive
rules it out), so this lemma is vacuously achievable; the substantive
case is the contrapositive one supplied by discreteFactivity_gradedTruth
plus monotonicity of the Bernoulli mixture.
§4. The 2 × 2 model space #
The four model variants from Sect. 4.3–4.4, crossing factivity (discrete/gradient) × world knowledge (discrete/gradient). Each model is a completion of one of the two norming models (Sect. 4.2) with a factivity component.
- discreteFactivity : ModelVariant
Discrete factivity + gradient world knowledge. Best fit. Extends norming-gradient (Sect. 4.2.1).
- whollyDiscrete : ModelVariant
Discrete factivity + discrete world knowledge. Extends norming-discrete (Sect. 4.2.2).
- whollyGradient : ModelVariant
Gradient factivity + gradient world knowledge. Worst fit.
- discreteWorld : ModelVariant
Gradient factivity + discrete world knowledge.
Instances For
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.instDecidableEqModelVariant x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.instReprModelVariant = { reprPrec := GroveWhite2025.instReprModelVariant.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Two norming-model bases (Sect. 4.2).
- gradient : NormingModel
Norming-gradient (Sect. 4.2.1): world knowledge as unresolved gradience.
- discrete : NormingModel
Norming-discrete (Sect. 4.2.2): world knowledge as resolved gradience.
Instances For
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.instDecidableEqNormingModel x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.instReprNormingModel = { reprPrec := GroveWhite2025.instReprNormingModel.repr }
Whether a model treats factivity as discrete (FDH) or gradient (FGH).
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.discreteFactivity.factivityHypothesis = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.FactivityHypothesis.FDH
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.whollyDiscrete.factivityHypothesis = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.FactivityHypothesis.FDH
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.whollyGradient.factivityHypothesis = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.FactivityHypothesis.FGH
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.discreteWorld.factivityHypothesis = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.FactivityHypothesis.FGH
Instances For
Whether a model treats world knowledge as gradient (unresolved) or discrete (resolved).
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.discreteFactivity.worldKnowledgeSource = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.GradienceSource.unresolved
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.whollyDiscrete.worldKnowledgeSource = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.GradienceSource.resolved
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.whollyGradient.worldKnowledgeSource = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.GradienceSource.unresolved
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.discreteWorld.worldKnowledgeSource = Phenomena.Presupposition.Gradience.GradienceSource.resolved
Instances For
Each factivity model extends one of two norming models. The extension relationship is determined by the world-knowledge treatment.
Equations
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.discreteFactivity.baseNormingModel = GroveWhite2025.NormingModel.gradient
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.whollyDiscrete.baseNormingModel = GroveWhite2025.NormingModel.discrete
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.whollyGradient.baseNormingModel = GroveWhite2025.NormingModel.gradient
- GroveWhite2025.ModelVariant.discreteWorld.baseNormingModel = GroveWhite2025.NormingModel.discrete
Instances For
§5. Bridge to @cite{scontras-tonhauser-2025} #
The factive reading of clauseEmbeddingSem is the same Boolean
predicate as @cite{scontras-tonhauser-2025}'s literalMeaning .knowPos.
Both unfold to factivePos from Theories.Semantics.Attitudes.Factivity,
so the equality is true by construction — a grounding theorem in the
sense of CLAUDE.md, witnessing that two paper-specific lexical entries
share their foundation.
The nonfactive reading is @cite{scontras-tonhauser-2025}'s
literalMeaning .thinkPos (both unfold to nonFactivePos).
The S&T binary model is the τ → {0, 1} limiting case of the
discrete-factivity model: know corresponds to τ_know = 1 (always
factive) and think corresponds to τ_think = 0 (never factive). The
Grove–White model generalises by allowing intermediate τ values for
the same predicate across occasions of use.
§6. Empirical anchoring (D&T 2021/2022) #
Under the discrete-factivity model with τ_know > τ_think, the model
predicts a know > think projection ordering. The empirical ordering
from @cite{degen-tonhauser-2022} (Exp 1a, sliding scale) confirms this
direction: aggregate ratings for know exceed those for think.
norm_num closes the literal comparison since ratings are ℚ-valued.
The prior-belief modulation finding from @cite{degen-tonhauser-2021}, replicated in 2b, is the empirical regularity the world-knowledge component of the discrete-factivity model is fit to: higher prior probability of the complement → stronger projection.